[Soulessdreamer]

worrywort, on 01 May 2010 - 05:22 PM, said:

I"m curious as to whether you've read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.

Nope. might see if the library has it though.

TTFN

[werewolfv2]

worrywort, on 09 May 2010 - 02:35 AM, said:

Werewolv2 did you just copy that from the Big Book of Email FWDs I Get From Racist Distant Relatives and Co-Workers © 2009, Racist Penguin Publishing? Naughty naughty!

I think my point was just made...

By stating what I said I seem to have gotten the racists label. Since I just was out last night with a few friends, one being black and the other mexican (the one other guy is white, polish and jewish, there has to be a joke here someplace) I suspect I may not be racist. I dont care what skin color you are, if your a decent person thats all that matters to me.

[werewolfv2]

Shinrei, on 09 May 2010 - 06:08 AM, said:

Well, I don't have any issue with there being a black history month - what you say Epiph is very true. But we should really have an Asian history month, and a Native American history month and a Hispanic history month too.

that would be an actually good idea, many cultures and races have helped build this country.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

MTS, on 09 May 2010 - 08:52 AM, said:

Race shouldn't matter, but unfortunately, it does matter in some places at the moment, such as employment. I can be post-racial and live my life under the creed that race has no value, and that is commendable, but if I do nothing to fight the inequality that actually exists, I'm ignoring the reality that race does, unfortunately, have actual 'value'. Thus, nothing will get done to rectify racial inequality.

The more people who fundamentally disregard race, the closer we are to equal treatment. Agitating for racial compensations perpetuates the idea that somehow one's race is important for status or merit.

That's just MHO.

[worry]

Shinrei, on 09 May 2010 - 09:48 AM, said:

@worrywort, werewolf wrote a post on the discussion board of what I presume is his actual opinion. Your comment then said his opinion was just like a racist email. How is that not implying he holds racist views?

I just posted an example of a racist chain email, you can compare and contrast that to werewolfv2's post at your leisure. I think I'm pretty clear that I do think those views are racist, which doesn't make werewolfv2 "a" racist. If you think I'm calling out individuals as racist, then you're simply mistaken. But when I see a point of view, an argument, an assumption, a generalization, a misconception, etc. that is racist, and feel like pointing it out, then I will do so. It's a systemic problem, and is perpetuated by bigots and non-bigots alike, as it involves so much more than mere race-based hatred. I've said that before, I think it's self-evident, and I don't plan on repeating that fact every single time the subject of racism comes up.

In 2010, when Jim Crow laws are still being proposed (http://www2.timesdis...-222807/336903/), when racism is still being codified (see Arizona Law thread, for one example), when 45% of registered Republicans believe Pres. Obama wasn't even born in America (http://mediamatters....ch/201003250048), I don't think Black History Month is really the big roadblock on the path to racial harmony. I also agree 100% with Epiph's comment on the subject. But what she describes as a "lack of awareness" I include under the umbrella of racism. If you're used to racism being used as a simple synonym of bigotry/hatred, well that's just not how I use the term, as I think it's reductive and besides the point in the big picture. So hell yah I think the view that Black History Month is BS is a racist view, and the "can't we all just be Americans" line is patronizing, even as I believe werewolfv2 likely doesn't have a bigoted bone in his body.

All that said, originally it seemed to me like werewolfv2's post was mostly light-hearted and tongue in cheek (the many emoticons), however basically true to his opinion it may have been. My response was also lighthearted, though true to my own POV as well. I don't mind being confronted if you think I'm out of line, though; I can be, as I'm prone to making short snide quips once in a while. In this case it's just that another board I frequent has a running thread of these chain emails, so they were on the mind and I felt like riffing on them. So I stand by my points, but I do apologize to werewolfv2 (and anyone else) if you think I was calling you a bigot or a racist. That was not my intent by any means.

[Shinrei]

worrywort, on 09 May 2010 - 08:33 PM, said:

I also agree 100% with Epiph's comment on the subject. But what she describes as a "lack of awareness" I include under the umbrella of racism. If you're used to racism being used as a simple synonym of bigotry/hatred, well that's just not how I use the term, as I think it's reductive and besides the point in the big picture. So hell yah I think the view that Black History Month is BS is a racist view,

Well here is where we disagree I think. For me, "racist" is a much more charged term. A racist view is a bigoted view, a racist opinion hold's an emotional (disdain, contempt, hatred) committment behind it. The term "racist" permeates beyond ignorance, and to me suggests a conciously manifested ill-will.

Which is why I would say that parts of werewolf's post was "misguided" rather than "racist".


I hope that puts us on the same page at least in our understanding of how we both view the word. I hope you can see why it bothered me.

[werewolfv2]

i think it makes it a bit interesting that I can make a point about how there is a double standard that makes it ok for one group of people to do something, but makes it not ok for another group to do the same thing, yet that makes me misguided or racist.

we are either all equal or we are not. by giving one group special "rights" to do something and not letting another do the same, thats wrong.

[Tapper]

worrywort, on 01 May 2010 - 05:22 PM, said:

I"m curious as to whether you've read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.

Still working on it, personally (that means reading). Find it rather boring and not very innovative or surprising so far, and that's from a historian who was starting his studies just after the book was published- thus likely long before the book became a standard part of the curriculum.

Several of the citations on wiki of the people critizing the book are quite smart, and interesting.

Iirc, but I would have to dig back in my uni-notes on late medieval history, a book much like this one (although mainly focusing on the colonization of sourthern America by the conquistadores) has been written by an Italian genius at the least a decade before Diamond published his work, narrowing a lot of Diamond's opinions down.

Of course, no-one reads Italian historians, except for my prof, apparently.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

I'm going with wolfy here. You can't have it both ways. You cannot agitate for equality and at the same time agitate for privileges, resources, retribution, what-have-you for any group. The word you're looking for is 'fair' and not 'equal.' Fair implies a weighting of need / privilege / etc on factors that make it 'fair'. 'Equal' means that there's no weighting, no bias at all.

This post has been edited by Adjutant Stormy: 10 May 2010 - 04:35 AM

[worry]

That makes perfect sense, Shinrei. Although I get that it's a valid synonym for other charged words, and I sometimes do call hatemongers "racists" myself as shorthand, generally I use it pretty antiseptically to describe the broader condition. I really do hope that it clears up what I'm trying to say on the topic in general.

werewolfv2, which special rights are you talking about exactly?

Tapper, maybe it's personal taste, but I found his writing pretty engaging. In terms of the theory, I think it's pretty strong overall despite some valid criticism. The strongest of which involves the generalizing he necessarily does and exceptions to the rule, so to speak, especially in post-Medieval times. I don't find the critique of "Eurocentrism" more than semi-applicable -- in other words, I don't think he disparages or undervalues non-European development, he just suggests that they weren't helpful in terms of world domination. It isn't a value judgment. Also, the term "Eurasia" simply doesn't bother me. That said, he's obviously writing from a point of view where the present is at the tail end of events, and not just another blip in human history. Can't see into the future, but European domination could very well be just that. And the political critique (as you can see, I'm just glancing over the wiki stuff), I tend to accept the counterargument that socio-political factors developed from environmental factors. Maybe not as exclusively one-way as Diamond generalizes, but if I had to call which shaped the other the most I'd agree with him. Who knows how much that will change in the technological age though? Anyways, you're right about your prof...Italians are good for food, art, and occasionally science, not history!

[Kanubis]

 I completely respect science and believe that anything proven through science should be sacrosanct. I also think it's possible, theoretically, that different races have different 'average' IQs, although from my personal experiences I've seen nothing to suggest it's white folk who would sit at the top of the pile!

My concern is why this branch of research would even be followed. Since we have people of all races performing at the top level in just about every field, what is the actual point in funding research that could only possibly lead to bad feeling? Surely you need to have some kind of prejudiced agenda to feel the need to prove this at all? Surely to reach a stage that can fairly be considered 'proof' you're going to pass through a lot of mere 'evidence' that could have devastating social implications as people leap on it because it suits their prejudices? On something this important, how can we trust that proof actually is proof. Let's face it, most of us don't have anywhere near the level of scientific knowledge to judge for ourselves if the research is legitimate. 


Black and white... I'm not one for PC language there, suggesting that a acurate-ish description of someone's skin colour is a taboo word seems racist to me. Yes kid, the a word that could be used, in it's logical meaning, to describe you is a bad word. That's gonna make him feel great...

This post has been edited by Kanubis: 10 May 2010 - 06:28 AM

[Adjutant Stormy~]

I believe wolfy was asserting the political correctness double standard.

I was kinda running with it.

[Epiph]

Adjutant Stormy, on 09 May 2010 - 08:44 AM, said:

Epiph, on 09 May 2010 - 05:45 AM, said:

To say, "Screw talking about and pointing out race," is to be post-racial, and to be post-racial is to ignore the racial inequities that still exist today, and thus, to, at the least, not fight racism and inequality.

Isn't post-racial the goal? Race shouldn't matter as an estimation of value, which means that you're ignoring it.

Shinrei, on 09 May 2010 - 06:08 AM, said:

Well, I don't have any issue with there being a black history month - what you say Epiph is very true. But we should really have an Asian history month, and a Native American history month and a Hispanic history month too. (I am not being facetious). We are not ready to be post-racial, that's for sure.

Why stop there? Why not a Pacific Islander history month? Or any racial association? What if large numbers of people don't associate with 'Asian?' Should there be Chinese history month? Japanese? Korean? Do you see where this breaks down? It's kinda silly.

Why shouldn't we try to be post-racial?

The goal is certainly to be post-racial, but we're not there yet. As a result, being post-racial just means ignoring race, and ignoring that some races are discriminated against by other races, though, in a lot of ways, that discrimination is more socioeconomic than racial. But, as Jill and guest posted Diane Lucas @ Feministe pointed out, when one black student's actions are taken as representative for her entire race and her white classmate's are not, that is racism, whether it's bigoted and hate-filled or uninformed and blind but with the best of intentions. If we strive to be post-racial while that is going on, no one is going to discuss how that black student is treated differently than a white student because of their respective races. We can't be post-racial while those sorts of inequities continue.

And for the record, I would fully support "_____ History Month" for all the minorities you mention.

[werewolfv2]

worrywort, on 10 May 2010 - 04:57 AM, said:

werewolfv2, which special rights are you talking about exactly?

Im stuck on the "special rights/double standard" issues.

Take issues like::

Miss Black America - could you imagine if somebody started a Miss White America contest?

Black Pride/Brown Pride - this is perfectly ok for somebody to state, have a bumper sticker/etc, but not for a white person. I see no reason not to be proud to be black or white as long as you don't look down at others who are not your skin color.

Black History Month - again I dont have an issue with highlighting accomplishments and history of a race, but if somebody tried to dedicate a month to white history it would be a mess.

its all these things that are allowed for some groups to do, but isnt ok for another group to do that I find foolish. It works against trying to get everybody to view each group as the same.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

You can't be post-racial while you continue to attempt to artificially redress those inequities, because it drives racial-minded judgement, instead of eliminating it.
The more people act post-racial, even when many do not, the better racially-related discrimination will get. If you can get that population to grow, you are solving the problem.

[Illuyankas]

werewolfv2, on 10 May 2010 - 05:27 PM, said:

worrywort, on 10 May 2010 - 04:57 AM, said:

werewolfv2, which special rights are you talking about exactly?

Im stuck on the "special rights/double standard" issues.

Take issues like::

Miss Black America - could you imagine if somebody started a Miss White America contest?

Black Pride/Brown Pride - this is perfectly ok for somebody to state, have a bumper sticker/etc, but not for a white person. I see no reason not to be proud to be black or white as long as you don't look down at others who are not your skin color.

Black History Month - again I dont have an issue with highlighting accomplishments and history of a race, but if somebody tried to dedicate a month to white history it would be a mess.

its all these things that are allowed for some groups to do, but isnt ok for another group to do that I find foolish. It works against trying to get everybody to view each group as the same.

I always viewed it as being Black History Month to contrast with the White Other Eleven Months. I don't know why more people don't see this. Just because it doesn't say White on it doesn't mean it's not focused on it for the majority of programmes.

Either research every single ethnic group and devote the same amount of time to each through the year - America Day in White History Month, Korea Day in Asian History Month etc - or admit it's a laudable but misguided attempt at bridging the gap between majority and minority and think of something better. Like Dickbag History Year.

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 10 May 2010 - 06:11 PM

[worry]

werewolfv2, on 10 May 2010 - 05:27 PM, said:

worrywort, on 10 May 2010 - 04:57 AM, said:

werewolfv2, which special rights are you talking about exactly?

Im stuck on the "special rights/double standard" issues.

Take issues like::

Miss Black America - could you imagine if somebody started a Miss White America contest?

Black Pride/Brown Pride - this is perfectly ok for somebody to state, have a bumper sticker/etc, but not for a white person. I see no reason not to be proud to be black or white as long as you don't look down at others who are not your skin color.

Black History Month - again I dont have an issue with highlighting accomplishments and history of a race, but if somebody tried to dedicate a month to white history it would be a mess.

its all these things that are allowed for some groups to do, but isnt ok for another group to do that I find foolish. It works against trying to get everybody to view each group as the same.

But we do have plenty of white pride organizations and institutions though. Fox News, the NRA, the Moose Lodge, the Elk Lodge, the Mormon church, the Tea Party, the totally reformed, harmless, forward looking KKK, all three branches of the federal government, the Texas Education Board, the state of Arizona, the entire Country Music industry, and of course every private country club in the nation, to name a few. And somebody DID start a Miss White America contest in 1921, you can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Miss_America.

[werewolfv2]

worrywort, on 10 May 2010 - 07:13 PM, said:

But we do have plenty of white pride organizations and institutions though. Fox News, the NRA, the Moose Lodge, the Elk Lodge, the Mormon church, the Tea Party, the totally reformed, harmless, forward looking KKK,

LOL, ok,

[Cold Iron]

Firstly it has been known since 1997 when successful Neanderthal DNA sequencing began that there is no evidence of cross breeding. The last common ancestor of sapiens and neaderthal is at least a half million years ago, long before the first common ancestor of modern humans.

Secondly intelligence is a cultural perception, influenced by a lot of things other than simply "this person knows shit I don't know". When conversing people tend to espouse opinions rather than simply relaying facts. We often assume an opinion stated confidently has the weight of fact behind it, this is certainly not always the case. Thus our perception of intelligence is more accurately a perception of social hierarchy. A member of a minority, especially an economically disadvantaged one, is usually going to be less likely to assert their opinion with confidence when confronted by a member of the privileged majority, especially considering that this may be perceived as a sort of threat of challenge in many situations.

Additionally there is a hierarchy of topics upon which our judgment of intelligence rests. Highly ranked topics tend to fall into one of two categories, either highly specialised topics such as physics or medicine, or highly privileged topics such as the arts and economics. Here also is where the economic divide influences our perception, we are far less likely to judge our mechanic as intelligent as our financial advisor but anyone who has opened a car engine will know the level of concentration and experience it can take.

So it is not genetics that dictates the smart parent having the smart child, but socioeconomic advantage and cultural perception.

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 11 May 2010 - 12:18 AM

[Adjutant Stormy~]

No. What you're asserting is that those who appear most intelligent (really, in your words, assertive), are the people of higher social status which is socioeconomically transferred parent-child. A cultural genetics, if you will.

If you give people an actual problem, you can't simply act confident to get yourself through. There are actual personal differences in people that determine capacity for knowledge, critical thinking ability, proportional reasoning, spatial awareness, and all of the other things that can be lumped into 'intelligence'. We're talking about the cranial assets that you use to get shit done, not the appearance or judgement thereof. Though that's probably another discussion worth having.

And for the record, I am far more impressed with a good mechanic than a good financial adviser. A good mechanic is a fucking wizard, whereas a good financial adviser could be lucky.

This post has been edited by Adjutant Stormy: 11 May 2010 - 02:10 AM